Pericles,
I trust you appreciate that a sincere discussion should entail certain levels of respect. The label 'perverse' is name calling and not befitting any worthy attempt at discussion. 

You've brought up evidence of 'recent' volcanic activity on the moon, allegedly 1 million or more years ago. As said earlier, these so called ages are always somewhat theoretical, as they result from calculations that necessarily involve making (philosophically based) assumptions at some level about what has happened in the past. 

There will be different explanations for the moon's composition and how the surface features came to be. Yet all agree that some cratering or lava flows appear to be more recent than others. 

'Researchers studying recent images of the far side of the moon, taken from the Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) lunar satellite, report dark “seas” of volcanic rock they say are “only” 2.5 billion years old, “much younger” than formerly presumed. That’s because there are fewer craters (blasted by meteors) on the smooth dark surfaces than expected—assuming the rate of cratering has been constant through time. Fewer craters means that the volcanic lava flows can’t be so old. Given this volcanic activity lasted (supposedly) 500 million years later than previously thought, evolutionists now have the challenge of explaining how lunar volcanism was able to persist for so long. The moon is only about one-quarter the diameter of Earth, and only about one-eightieth of its mass, so it should have long ago cooled, and long been geologically dead.'

The moon should not have been volcanically active so long. Yet such evidence of more recent volcanic activity favours young age explanations. 

I couldn't think of a better word, Dan S de Merengue. But it's hardly "name calling".

>>Pericles, I trust you appreciate that a sincere discussion should entail certain levels of respect. The label 'perverse' is name calling and not befitting any worthy attempt at discussion.<<

Can you suggest a word that is less offensive to you, but still means "a conclusion that contradicts all accepted norms"? Because that was what I was aiming for.

Let's try again.

>>You've brought up evidence of 'recent' volcanic activity on the moon, allegedly 1 million or more years ago.<<

Sorry, I was under the impression that it was you who raised the subject of the moon's volcanic activity. Ah yes, here it is:

>>...evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old as that long should have cooled down<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14560#253786

And lo, here is the evidence that you (not me) have provided in support:

"Researchers studying recent images of the far side of the moon, taken from the Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) lunar satellite, report dark 'seas' of volcanic rock they say are 'only' 2.5 billion years old, 'much younger' than formerly presumed."

So, a question: do you accept that if the volcanic rock is 'only' 2.5 billion years old, it precludes the supposition that the universe is six thousand years old?

If you don't accept the information as presented, on what basis do you present it as evidence? That is the part that I find to be "a conclusion that contradicts all accepted norms"

And I shouldn't rely on this kind of logic, if I were you:

"Given this volcanic activity lasted (supposedly) 500 million years later than previously thought, evolutionists now have the challenge of explaining how lunar volcanism was able to persist for so long."

Because you and I both know that this is exactly what will happen, just as it always has. The more scientists look, the more they find, and the closer they get to an accurate picture.

Thing is, now they know where to dig, which will help fill in the blanks.

Pericles,
Your question, do I accept that if the volcanic rock is 2.5 billion years old, it precludes the supposition that the universe is six thousand years old?

Of course. The second part of the sentence follows from the first. But I obviously disagree with the first part. These particular researchers said the rock was 2.5 billion years old. Yet I am discerning and don't necessarily accept everything that others say or the conclusions they arrive at.  At risk of repeating myself, such ages are somewhat theoretical, as they result from calculations that necessarily involve making (philosophically based) assumptions at some level about what has happened in the past. 

You need to understand the distinction between the meanings of such words: evidence, observation, supposition, allegation, fact, theory and conclusion. For example, the Japanese probe was making observations of the far side of the moon. That there are 'seas' of volcanic rock as a result of lava flows is a fact generally accepted by everyone. One important fact is that the probe was not there billions of years ago to measure the elapsed time, so their allegation of the '2.5 billion year' age of the maria is theory based upon supposition. The evidence that I was putting forward was the lesser rate of cratering observed in that part of the maria compared to other parts. 

As we make observations and use all the evidences to piece together a possible scenario of what happened in the past and how long it has existed for, it is this different rate of cratering for various parts of the moon surface that doesn't fit easily with long age theories but comes in favour of the young age theories for the history of the solar system. 

Your logic is discontinuous, Dan S de Merengue.

>>...it is this different rate of cratering for various parts of the moon surface that doesn't fit easily with long age theories but comes in favour of the young age theories for the history of the solar system<<

There is no discernible connection between the lack of fit with the previous determinations of the craters' ages, and "young age theories for the history of the solar system". It therefore sheds no light on a young earth at all, but merely suggests that we need more information to inform our conclusions.

Since you already have reached your conclusion, this additional material - which will undoubtedly be forthcoming, now that the anomaly has attracted some attention - is irrelevant. You will, I am sure, simply repeat your mantra that because scientists cannot ever be entirely certain exactly how the universe came into being, the Bible must perforce be true.

This is, if you hadn't noticed, a form of capitulation on my part, since you and I will continue to disagree on the simplest of issues, which you frame as follows.

>>...such ages are somewhat theoretical, as they result from calculations that necessarily involve making (philosophically based) assumptions at some level about what has happened in the past<<

The only "philosophical" assumption here is the one you propose, which is that the answer is in Genesis. Scientists and astrophysicists confine themselves to observation. Which is, of course, how the divergence from accepting Genesis as fact, and arriving at a different conclusion, first arose. Science did not suddenly say "hey, I think the universe is 13.5 billion years old, let's find some evidence". They said "what we see differs from what we have been told. Let's find out more".

So let's explore your philosophy a little further for a moment. You believe completely in Genesis, I have to accept that. Do you have the same commitment to Revelations? Or Leviticus?

Using your logic, if there are anomalies present anywhere in these, the entire story - Genesis and all - must be based on an untenable philosophy.

Just a thought on behalf of all of us who are still clicking on the "Show discussions for articles published one quarter back" display button… and consistent with my assumed role of being 'an helpmeet', is this an additional possible line of enquiry?

If we set aside the book of Genesis – assume for the sake of philosophically based argument it doesn't exist – what are the evidences for the age of the universe, the earth and everything in and on it being 6000 years?

As I said, just an idea, since internal contradictions in the Bible aren't going to disappear any time soon and could wait.

Are you truly sure about this, WmTrevor?

>>...consistent with my assumed role of being 'an helpmeet'<<

I mean, I appreciate the intent, but as John Gill (1697-1771) explained the term in his Bible Commentary...

"I will made him an help meet for him; one to help him in all the affairs of life, not only for the propagation of his species, but to provide things useful and comfortable for him; to dress his food, and take care of the affairs of the family; one 'like himself' in nature, temper, and disposition, in form and shape; or one 'as before him', that would be pleasing to his sight, and with whom he might delightfully converse, and be in all respects agreeable to him, and entirely answerable to his case and circumstances, his wants and wishes."

That's quite a workload, even for Online Opinion.

But I would like to call you on a glaring inconsistency.

>>If we set aside the book of Genesis – assume for the sake of philosophically based argument it doesn't exist...<<

If we did that, we wouldn't have the word helpmeet anyway, so you'd disappear in a puff of logic.